Share This:

It’s been nearly a month since I deleted all the ads from my site. Instead of pasting targeted distractions to my readers, I opted for simplicity. If readers wanted to support me, they could buy my book, donate, or share my work. Since then, an explosive dialogue surrounding the ethics and use of ad blockers has ensued. I decided to share my two cents on advertisers, marketing, and the “death of the web.”

Advertisers want us to believe that their commercials and banner ads inform us. They need us to consider their arguments, and think we’re making rational decisions in response. And they implant a picture of perfection – of what life could look like – with their products.

We’re supposed accept this bombardment of stimuli as the cost of accessing and reading websites. Go to The New York Times, and a slurry of ads feast over your metadata to predict what you might purchase next and serve up a healthy dose of consumerism. Behind the scenes, trackers surreptitiously soak up your browsing history, location, and personal data.

This is the cost of being a content consumer in the 21st century, and for years, we’ve accepted it. Until recently, when the entire Internet exploded in euphoria and vitriol over Apple’s new mobile operating system (iOS). It’s most recent update empowered users to install “content blockers,” which would effectively eliminate advertisements in the mobile browser.

As the browsing experience improves, profit revenue decreases. It’s a perfect inverse correlation. The web feels calmer without ads. I don’t have to be defensive and avert my eyes.

Over the last few weeks, publishers worldwide have clambered to their keyboards, predicting apocalypses. The Verge conducted a poll of its users, which found that 78% said “Yes” they will use an ad blocker. Without ad revenue, how will they survive?! If everyone turns off the ads, how will companies make money?

Publishers are already predicting that companies will cease to exist. One quote from PC Mag highlights the hyperbolic language: “With this move, users will eventually wonder why their favorite website died before finding another set of content to plunder.” Supposedly, a content pirate will kill sites left and right because of their ad blocker use.

Wired highlighted the plight of Google’s profits in an almost sympathetic tone: “Google depends almost entirely on ads for revenue. By one estimate, the giant may be losing billions of dollars from these kind of browser blocking extensions.” What will the massive, multinational corporation do without its record-breaking ad revenue?

Adding to the publisher outcries is The Verge’s Nilay Patel, who said ad blockers could mean the “Death of the web.” Then he added that “taking money and attention away from the web means that web innovation will slow to a crawl.” Wow! Death, as in ceasing to exist. That’s pretty extreme, right? Without ads, your computer literally would cease to surf – browsers would be pointless.

The problem with all this fear mongering is that it’s flawed. The web was not invented by corporate interests; rather, it was a governmental invention that became a public good. Advertising wasn’t part of the equation. Profit wasn’t the sole motivator to those who innovated in the early days of the Internet.

Even today, much of the web exists because of volunteers, governments, and public grants. Open source projects like Wikipedia, Ubuntu, and Firefox are perfect examples of how third-party ads needn’t be the sole source of innovation or income.

Interestingly, in this ad-infested web, major publishers have grown to bloated proportions. Many recycle other news outlets’ content and repackage it as their own. Companies like The Verge, Wired, and PC Mag occasionally publish top-notch journalistic pieces, but they’re most often caught up in quasi-advertisement “product reviews” and republishing. It’s lazy work to draw eyeballs, not critical thinking. To lose these companies would be awful, as I must admit I enjoy them, but we’d move on.

We’ve come to a crossroads as publishers and consumers. Should we put up with ads or use ad blockers? Should we accept distraction or simplicity? Should we keep the status quo or demand an alternative?

Some suggest paywalls, which force readers to subscribe for content. I can guarantee that circulation will drop immensely and many won’t pay (here’s looking at one of them). If it’s news, it’ll be printed somewhere else in a non-subscription form. And if it’s not reprinted, then it can’t be that important, can it? So, that idea’s gone.

Others promote the concept of paid articles. Many publishers have already experimented with advertiser-paid articles such as The New York Times and The Verge. Instead of reading a non-biased, semi-objective piece of journalism, readers have the distinct privilege of reading a lengthy advertisement. Again, everyone loses if the web destroys objectivity in journalism.

We live at a time of immense progress; ironically, technology is contending with these advances. Ad blockers censor and clean the web of the dirty bits. You no longer need to continually feel compelled to buy, buy, buy. Nor do pages deliver 20, 30, or 40+ trackers to your computer.

The rationale is clear: the web is better when it’s simpler. But questions remain about the sustainability of any company once their ad revenue dries up.

Here’s where I must be slightly callous. Frankly, capitalism is said to be flexible and adaptive. The invisible hand is supposed to morph and move with demand. There are companies constantly winning and losing in this roulette wheel of life – not everyone wins all the time. The companies that can successfully adapt to changing market forces… They’re the winners in this game.

Share This:

Every week I like to feature a few frugal articles that caught my eyes. Curl up in your favorite reading nook and enjoy. Hopefully these encourage you to live frugal lives!

Nine hard-won lessons about money and investing by Matt CuttsThose of you in the personal finance, minimalism, and frugality worlds might not know his name, but Matt Cutts is a legend. He started working for Google in the early days, and became a master of spam — decimating it everywhere from email to search results. In his “spare time,” he manages a blog about various topics. In this article, Matt outlines a step-by-step action plan for saving and investing money. Rather than linking to affiliate companies and profiting off his suggestions, he gives honest advice.

We are wealthy. And why it matters by Joshua Becker
Wealth is a funny concept. Hardly anyone thinks they’re rich, and few recognize the vast privileges they have already — regardless of comparisons to wealthy elite. Joshua beautifully captures the importance of keeping perspective in this article.

Alice Gregory on Finding a Uniform by Alice GregoryThis young writer talks about her journey to find a uniform of sorts. The big difference is that this isn’t about business; rather, it’s for comfort, style, and savings. Alice explains how her “uniform” works for nearly every occasion and rids her of unnecessary distraction throughout the day. Awesome article and idea!

Share This:

The term starts with classic media manipulation

For too long, big businesses and media conglomerates have propagated messages that suggest that only wealthy individuals can be graced with that moniker: “job creators.” The time has come to reappropriate and annex this title from the privileged minority.

News outlets are masterminds at twisting words to fit this greater script. Their training must be incredible, because they’re naturals at it. The trite, overused, and vapid phrases support a message that “wealthy people create jobs.”

The wealthiest elite stole the term, job creators. Instead of saying “rich,” “wealthy,” or “top one-percent,” the term puts a positive, flattering spin to scary inequality. What could possibly be wrong with job creators? Why would we want to discourage job creation? We need to help these job creators do their job — create jobs! (You can find beautiful examples of this media manipulation on Fox.)

This widely circulated logical fallacy has long been hurting the masses. Billionaires are often seen as the lubricant for our great American society. The dream that we are born into is promoted by their unique skill set, intellect, and economic wherewithal. Where would we be as a country, people, and world without the wealthiest people creating jobs? What would the world look like if we just removed the economic power that is trapped within the economic elite — our infamous one-percenters?

Started from the bottom now we here…

Let’s clear up this myth real quick. Below, I have ten (off the top of my head) of the greatest entrepreneurs of the last few decades. None of them were billionaires or part of the wealthy elite prior to creating thousands of jobs.

There’s no doubt that we’ve benefited as a world and country from these entrepreneurs. But to suggest that their billionaire status created jobs would be naive and dangerous. They created jobs through grit, timing, and intellect, but it came before the money.

Jobs was tripping on LSD and going through spiritual journeys, and then segued to the computer industry.

“[Steve Jobs] never finished college, dropping out after 18 months to take random, creative classes (such as that calligraphy, which he said is one of the main reasons why the graphics look so great on Apple devices). He was dropping in on these classes and just grabbing as much knowledge as possible without actually getting a grade in them. During the course of that he slept on the floor of friends’ dorm rooms, returning Coke bottles for food money, and getting weekly free meals at the local temple. (Source)”

He wasn’t wealthy, just a hippie looking to find salvation in the next great technology.

Larry Page and Sergey Brin were mere graduate students at Stanford University when their lives were forever changed. They weren’t rich, just motivated entrepreneurs.

Who are the real job creators?

We have entered a centralized, monopolized, anti-trust-ridden epoch where only a select few companies, organizations, and people control the dialogue. Fox News shouldn’t be able to manipulate the American people into thinking that wealthy people are job creators. And the short answer: they’re not.

Today, we must reclaim the title of “job creators” to their rightful owners: consumers and small business entrepreneurs. Every time we choose to search through Google, check/update our Facebook status, click and clack over our Apple keyboards, and slip on that Under Armour for a run, we are making an active, consumer-based choice. We are supporting jobs for that company and industry. That purchase and usage is our choice; ultimately, we create and support those jobs through this spending.